The Ontario Public Library: Review and Reorganization. Prepared for the Ontario Provincial Library Council by Albert W. Bowron. Toronto: Information, Media and Library Planners, December 1975; p. 184; maps; tables; paper.
In June 1974, the Ministry of Ministry of Colleges and Universities approved a provincial research study on Ontario’s public libraries. Albert Bowron, a prominent library consultant, was hired to complete a general investigation. He was well qualified for the task, having worked in Ontario libraries for more than a quarter-century. Bowron had graduated from the University of Toronto Library School in 1949, worked at Toronto Public Library, and headed the Scarborough Public Library in the 1960s before establishing his consultancy in 1969. He was well known across the province, for he had served as president of the Ontario Library Association in 1966–67. By the mid-1970s he had issued reports on more than a dozen library systems in Ontario, large and small.
 | |
| Albert Bowron, 1949 |
However, before Bowron began his major study, two major factors occurred: one at the provincial level, the other in Metropolitan Toronto. First, at the end of 1974, a new Ministry of Culture and Recreation (MCR) was established. The idea of placing libraries in a “Ministry of Culture” had been floated for some time, and the news that the Provincial Library Service Branch (PLS) would become a unit within the MCR in early 1975 came without much consultation, even though the library component consumed about twenty percent of the new Ministry’s total budget. For the PLS, this move was the last in a series of shuffles that situated it in three different ministries in four years. This reorganization occurred when the staff of the PLS had dwindled from thirteen in 1965 to eight in 1975. For Bowron, there were many unknowns because the new MCR would be developing its own program priorities. Second, in September 1974, the former Premier of Ontario, John Robarts, became chair of a Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto to review responsibilities in the two-tier structure encompassing the six boroughs and city. As a result, Metro libraries became less interested in Bowrons study because the Royal Commission took precedence. Regarding consensus, the Metro library and lower-tier boards had not agreed upon a metropolitan strategy. North York had consistently advocated that the Metro board support the technical services, research, and coordinated needs of borough and city libraries. In the city itself, the construction of the Metro Central Library, scheduled to open in 1977, had always been a major objective to provide resources and information. The new Commission effectively meant Bowron’s observations on Metro libraries would not have much impact.
At the same time, divisions were becoming more apparent in the library community. The Administrators of Large Urban Centre Public Libraries in Ontario immediately came together in April 1975 to present the MCR with a brief that indicated the proposed study did not sufficiently address important library issues, such as financial support for urban libraries that bore the burden of resource networking. A year later, in May 1976, another grouping of public libraries, Administrators of Medium-Size Public Libraries, formed to speak for its constituency.
The Bowron Report 1975–76
It was against this backdrop that the Bowron study began in 1975. There were some positives. The MCR was offering library base funding in 1975 at $19 million. In addition, it would make $400,000 available to regional libraries for Canadiana. Money for Outreach Ontario programs in libraries would continue in the MCR, and a new program with $234,000 would be available for summer student employment. Many were relieved to hear that the MCR supported direct provincial conditional grants to public libraries rather than transfers to municipal councils which might reduce the amount distributed to libraries by the MCR. In October 1975, the Ontario Commission on the Legislature issued a report on government information service; it proposed that the government consider establishing a network linking libraries by telephone and telex to furnish public information and referral service. Its purpose would be to give every Ontario citizen a source to call for information on anything to do with all levels of government.
After a year, Albert Bowron produced a general investigative report with forty-three recommendations covering ten key areas. His report also covered general societal changes, an examination of Canadiana resources in libraries, and a review of Metro libraries; however, these chapters were mostly ignored in the debates that followed the submission of the what became known in early 1976 as the “Bowron Report.” Reviewers quickly noted that data used in the report often was not reflected in recommendations. For example, the composition of boards. In an analysis of 1,296 board members, Bowron found 19.2 % were housewives, 18.2% involved in education, 16.1% to be business persons, 12.6% were retired, 4.1% were farmers, 4% from skilled labour, and 25.8% “other.” Middle-income members prevailed: “The typical board member in Ontario in 1974 was a man, 30 to 50 years old, with a university or college education, who worked in the field of education.” (p. 80-82). Still, this observation did not lead to a clear-cut recommendation.
From the vantage point of almost half a century (2023) the Bowron Report is mostly forgotten: the fate of many reports. The library landscape he surveyed is mostly a matter of history. Of course, public libraries have been continually reshuffled in reformed ministries since the 1970s. Provincial library grants to boards have not kept pace with inflation, especially after the mid-1990s. Yet his report warrants re-examination because it did emphasize change and pointed to new directions that are firmly in place in the 21st century. Bowron stated libraries needed to adjust to changing societal trends and augment the traditional image as a place to borrow a “good book to read.” There needed to be concerted focus on cooperative work, technology, work with the disadvantaged and minorities, and service to students (p. 4-6). The image of libraries was an important element in transforming the its status with the citizens of Ontario.
Thus, a synopsis of all Bowron’s work, The Ontario Public Library, which is difficult to find in a library today, follows on a chapter-by-chapter basis.
3-1 MCR and a new Ontario Public Library Board (OPLB) and native organizations sponsor a study of their services and propose recommendations for future development.
4-1 The MCR and local libraries work to develop better community services.
4-2 Regional system establish contact with MCR field officers and offer co-operative activities of mutual interest.
4-3 Standards for CICs be framed to permit local libraries to offer this service with supporting provincial grants.
4-4 The Minister of the MCR seek advice on the certification and recognition of librarians.
5-1 The PLS would be responsible for community information centers (CICs), thus becoming a Public Library and Community Information Services branch (PLCIS).
5-2 The branch would supervise library legislation and CICs; conduct research; support the proposed Ontario Library Board; and liaise with ministry officials. Additional staff for electronic data processing, networking, and CICs, was urged along with service to Franco-Ontarians.
6-1 The report advised the Minister to appoint an Ontario Public Library Board to replace the OPLC.
6-2 The Minister of MCR appoint all OPLB members.
6-3 OPLB members to usually serve four-year terms and be reappointed once.
6-4 The Director of the PLCIS would be sec.-treas. of the OPLB with appropriate staffing. The Board would establish minimum standards, coordinate research, study financing, and establish province-wide policies for public library and information service.
7-1 All library boards be composed of nine members appointed by the municipal council.
7-2 Union boards be comprised of nine members appointed by each council.
7-3 Five citizen board members be appointed for three years and frequent reappointments eliminated.
7-4 Bowron recommended that a board serving less than 15,000 receive a two-year provincial grant but must exceed its provincial grant with local revenue thereafter or contract for services or join a county system.
7-5 Independent boards under 15,000 population must provide twice the provincial grant financing after two years of operation.
7-6 Payment to board members should be allowed, and all boards should be composed of nine members appointed by municipal councils to ensure accountability. Appointing bodies should exercise care to make boards more representative of their communities.
8-1 New regional systems and OPLB adopt better program budgeting.
8-2 Funding separate from regular grants be spent on projects with possible long-term growth instead of supplementing ongoing expenditures on materials or equipment.
8-3 The provincial government continue to support regional systems and develop a province-wide network of libraries.
8-4 Provincial grants be transferred directly to local boards and be sufficient to allow for long-range planning of library service.
9-1 Bowron urged greater efforts by the MCR and other ministries to form county libraries.
9-2 The appointment of members to county boards by county councils, including lay members, after three years.
9-3 Library service in newly restructured regions should become the responsibility of the upper tier.
9-4 Service levels in local communities in new county libraries be supported at the same levels or better for three years.
9-5 Special funding for initial county development was necessary for three years.
9-6 The repeal of Part IV, Clause 52, Sections 1-3 [the process to form a county library established in 1966].
9-7 Provincial support for the legacy Simcoe County Library Co-operative be withdrawn.
9-8 The PLCIS encourage the formation of county systems.
10-1 The OPLB and PLCIS monitor electronic data processing to ensure a coordinated approach to automation.
10-2 Provincial support for cataloguing, inter-library lending, circulation control and acquisitions using automation be studied by working groups in concert with the University of Toronto Library Automated Systems development.
10-3 The OPLB sponsor a workshop to develop a unified approach to automation.
12-1 Franco-Ontario staff member be added to the PL and Community Services Branch to serve French-speaking citizens better.
12-2 Libraries established in significant French-speaking areas employed Francophone staff
12-3 An annual grant for Francophone library service be transferred by MCR to libraries where more than ten percent of the population is French-speaking.
12-4 Two members of OPLC be Franco-Ontarians, and Francophone membership on library boards be instituted where feasible.
12-5 A provincial study be undertaken to identify Franco-Ontarians’ needs.
13-1 There be an integrated public library system in all thirteen newly restructured municipal governments (Metro excepted).
13-2 The reduction of fourteen regional library systems to seven federated ones based on the new MCR’s regional offices.
13-3 There be one resource library in each federated system financed by the province.
13-4 Each resource library to be funded on a per capita basis as determined annually by the OPLB.
13-5 The OPLB establish meaningful qualitative and qualitative standards to act as minimum levels of service to be attained by public libraries.
13-6 The OPLB standards adopted by the MCR would be incorporated into legislation on which grant qualification would depend.
Public L\library reaction to the Bowron Report
A variety of responses to the report surfaced extending into 1977. One weakness soon became apparent: a noticeable lack of public input into the actual report-gathering process. Fewer than forty briefs and letters were submitted during the survey, mainly from libraries, regional systems, or educational groups like the Ontario Library Association. Two major groups with conflicting views caught the attention of the provincial government. Some issues, especially unconditional grants, drew attention outside library circles. A new municipal group formed in 1972, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), weighed in with its preference to deconditionalize grants. The Association believed that municipalities should have the right to appoint all board members and have the option to dissolve a board and to make it a committee of council. Further, the AMO rejected most of Bowron’s recommendations on county libraries. The AMO would remain vigilant on library questions by issuing reports countering ideas that library groups proposed. Another group, the OLA, also concentrated on funding, primarily increased provincial conditional aid for assessment-poor municipalities as well as capital grants for construction. Yet, the final report had little recognition of OLA’s specific funding suggestions. The MCR was prepared to receive post-report submissions, but the onus was on the OLA and library agencies to assess responses.
Generally, the library community was indecisive and reacted negatively to Bowron’s recommendations. It was felt that the report lacked clear direction, employed a somewhat faulty methodology, covered too broad a spectrum, and was seriously underfunded. Vociferous critics denounced the restructuring of regions, criticized the lack of reference to capital funding, and decried Bowron’s criticism of county library developments before 1974. Bowron had intended to “reduce the number, the types of library authorities, the ways in which members are appointed, to change the term of appointment and other regulations” (p. 69). He pointed out that in 1975, 308 boards were serving less than 10,000 people, a Depression-era number despite thirty years’ counsel about the wisdom of larger units. How would boards react to a change in the method of appointment that might lessen their independence?
The surveyor had made judgements that were difficult to construct a consensus about, i.e., the federated library systems. Meetings within regions often produced conflicting ideas related to coordinated services or the value of centralized processing. In northern Ontario, the achievement of basic service needed proper funding to overcome distances and income disparities, not further study as Bowron advocated. The lack of rationale for the seven federated regions and the complexities of board composition for the new regional entities puzzled observers who had spent most of a decade fostering closer relationships in the existing regional environment. Many trustees felt Bowron’s report did not sufficiently strengthen the PLS. Trustees and librarians were content with encouraging, not legislating, larger units of service.
Bowron’s analysis of pro-forma (non-operating) boards upset many library trustees who relied solely on provincial conditional grants. He had noted their formation in eastern Ontario, the Georgian Bay area, and along Lake Ontario had effectively stalled the creation of union or county boards. Another deficiency raised in the Bowron review was the interconnection with federal libraries and organizations outside the MCR. Public libraries across Canada sought new services supported by the National Library and the new $15 million national science library erected in 1974, the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information. A recurring question during the review process was whether the provincial government would fund recommendations to make services more effective. Planning systems development and networking, automation projects, equitable funding, and revising provincial grants was not inexpensive.
An autumn 1976 session at the OLA’s Toronto annual meeting, “Bowron and Beyond,” agreed that a strengthened provincial library board and the MCR’s lead in networking development was necessary. Some issues, such as the need for standards or guidelines, were not contentious. There was also wide-based agreement on some points, e.g., networking and infrastructure need. But support was tepid: there were too many divisions of opinion and reliance on the status quo to fashion new legislation or fund large projects. Like many government efforts, the Bowron study was consigned to office shelves as current activities and events continued to unfold that diverted interest or steered energies in new directions.
Building consensus and unity was essential because the MCR was a new entity with different policies. The sixties and early seventies had been a search for general public library purpose, structure, and role definition: circulation had surpassed fifty million and almost eight million people were reached. Bowron had emphasized change, but it would be another decade (1984-85) before public library legislation would be entirely revised and a handful of his recommendations, such as the composition and method of trustee appointments, larger regional operations, service to indigenous libraries, strengthened Francophone service, improvements for minorities, and provincial funding for automation, was adopted. In his pursuit for change Bowron was partially successful and, in the long run, the public library benefited the most from his work and ideas.
There is an informative review by E. Stanley Beacock, “The Ontario Public Library: Review and Reorganization,” Library Quarterly 46-4 (Oct. 1976): 452–454
Terrence B. Verity, ed. Libraries at the Crossroads: Proceedings of a Workshop on the Report The Ontario Public Library, Review and Reorganization. Toronto: Ontario Library Association, 1976.
Bowron’s work is the subject of a review in the March 1976 issue of the Ontario Library Review 60, no. 1: 5-10 with a correction in the June issue p. 116.
A subsequent provincial study by Peter Bassnett, issued in 1982, is the subject of a previous blog. He studied many of the same issues which led to a new library act proclaimed in 1985 that remains the basis for current public libraries in Ontario.
